comparative review integrated models
DESCRIPTION
AquaResource was contracted by the Province of Ontario to review Integrated Groundwater/Surface Water Models and provide recommendations on their applicability in the Province.TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparative Review of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models
June 21, 2011
![Page 2: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Acknowledgements
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Mike Garraway Lynne Milford
DHI Water and Environment Patrick Delaney Ying Qiao Doug Graham
Alberta Innovates Dr. Jon Paul Jones
S.S. Papadopulos and Associates Chris Neville
AquaResource Inc. David Van Vliet Steven Murray Christian Gabriel
![Page 3: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Comparative Review of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models
Prepared by:AquaResource Inc.DHI Water and EnvironmentAlberta InnovatesS.S. Papadopulos and Associates
Prepared for: The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Summary of Report• Compare available
codes based on theory, numerical methods, and user experience
• GSFLOW*• HydroGeoSphere*• MikeSHE**• ModHMS• Parflow
• Ontario case studies. * Subwatershed 19 (Credit River)** Mill Creek Subwatershed (Grand River)
• Recommended modelling methods and procedures
• Release Summer 2011
![Page 4: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Conjunctive Modelling – Why? Conventional surface water or
groundwater models don’t always reflect natural systems Simplifying assumptions made for either
groundwater or surface water portions of model.
Interpretation and quantification of interaction between surface water and groundwater system difficult.
The value of conventional models is reflected by the hydrological processes represented by those models
Traditional methods are not well suited to cumulative impact assessment. Unless physical processes are not well represented, marginal and incremental change prediction is uncertain
![Page 5: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Conjunctive Models Considered
Model Developer Hydrologic Processes
GSFLOW (MODFLOW + PRMS)
United States Geological Survey
Physical & Empirical,Semi-distributed
Hydrogeosphere (HGS)
University of Waterloo and
Laval University
Physical,Fully Distributed
MIKE SHE DHI Water & Environment
Physical and EmpiricalFully or semi-distributed
![Page 6: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Model Evaluation GSFLOW (USGS) Based on well
established and accepted modelling codes (PRMS + MODFLOW)
Supported by USGS Open source, free No dynamic stream
routing, no overland flow routing
Soil water balance and runoff calculations highly empirical
Daily timesteps
![Page 7: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Model Evaluation – HydroGeoSphere (HGS) (University of Waterloo)
Variable finite element mesh resolution, excellent mass balance
Sophisticated subsurface model: 3D Richards representation
of unsaturated zone. Variable saturated
groundwater flow as well as Limited hydrologic processes
(snowmelt, soil water balance, interflow)
long run times
![Page 8: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Model Evaluation – MIKE SHE (DHI Water and Environment)
Highly flexible, full GUI interface
Empirical and physical representations of hydrologic processes
Sophisticated post processing
Reasonable run times DHI support Uniform finite difference
mesh
![Page 9: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Examples of Model Comparison Criteria
Watershed
Processes
•Rainfall
•Snowmelt
•ET•Overland Flow
•Seasonal Parameters
Vadose Zone
•Soil Moisture•Infiltration, Percolation, Recharge
Groundwater
•Lumped vs numerical
•Boundary conditions
•Fractures
•Macropores
•Water takings
Surface Water
•Channel flow
•Pipe flow
•Lakes
•Flooding
•Dams and reservoirs
•Diversions
•Irrigation
•Erosion and Sediment
•Water takings
Other
•Numerical solution parameters•GIS support•GUI•Tech support•Training
![Page 10: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Mill CreekGrand River Watershed
Subwatershed 19Credit River Watershed
Case Studies Objectives
Compare models Explore and demonstrate benefits of integrated models over
traditional approaches Develop recommended practices and methods
![Page 11: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Case Study: Credit Valley Subcatchment 19
![Page 12: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Case Study: Credit Valley Subcatchment 19 Headwaters of the Credit River - Approximately 60 km2 Land use: urban, agriculture, wetlands, aggregate. Issues:
Municipal drinking water supply (groundwater) Wastewater assimilation Streamflow quality and quantity
Existing studies: Subwatershed Study (CVC) Tier Three Water Quantity Risk Assessment (MNR, municipalities) Island Lake Water Budget Study
Existing Models HSPF, GAWSER (Surface Water) MODFLOW, FEFLOW (Groundwater)
![Page 13: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Integrated Models Provide Realistic ET Predictions
![Page 14: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Groundwater Recharge Predictions Influenced by Soils, Vegetation, Topography, Discharge
![Page 15: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Groundwater Discharge Into Wetlands Simulated Without Boundary Conditions
![Page 16: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Streamflow Impact Assessment
0.01
0.10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Flow
(m3 /
s)
Month
Flow Distribution for Lower Monora Creek - MIKE-SHEBaseline vs Combined Impact Scenario
Pre-Impact Interquartile Range Post-Impact Interquartile Range Upper/Lower DecilePre-Impact Median Flow Post-Impact Median Flow
![Page 17: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Mill Creek Subwatershed
![Page 18: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Description of the Subwatershed Covers an area of roughly 100 km2 and is situated
between the Galt-Paris moraines. The headwaters of Mill Creek are located southeast of
Guelph, where Mill Creek flows southwest, joining the Grand River in downtown Cambridge (Galt).
Land cover within Mill Creek is predominantly agriculture, with forests and wetlands comprising the majority of the remaining land area.
Mill Creek supports cold-water fisheries, rich wetlands, and also has extensive aggregate production facilities within the watershed.
![Page 19: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Mill Creek Subwatershed Land Cover
![Page 20: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Calibration – Mike SHE Represents Low Flows Very Well. GW/SW Interactions Critical
01-Jan-04 01-Mar-04 01-May-04 01-Jul-04 01-Sep-04 01-Nov-040
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Simulated Discharge Observed Discharge
Dis
charg
e (
m3/s
)
![Page 21: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Variable ET Across Watershed, Influenced by Landuse, Wetlands, Aggregate Extraction
![Page 22: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Groundwater Discharge Critical Along Streams, Wetlands and Hillslopes
![Page 23: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Simulated Soil Moisture Reflects Delineated Wetlands
![Page 24: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Seasonal Soil Moisture Variability in Wetlands
![Page 25: Comparative Review Integrated Models](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051818/54b8a92d4a7959b83b8b4808/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Conclusions Benefits of Integrated Models over Traditional Models
Integrating groundwater and surface water models removes traditional assumptions (recharge, boundary conditions)
Realistic water budgets (ET, Influence of Topography) Groundwater / surface water interactions (Wetlands, Hillslopes, Hummocky Areas)
better handled Physically-based continuous low flow predictions – needed for ecological flow
assessments Data requirements are similar to traditional approaches
Limitations Computational Time – It can be manageable Calibration Time – Reduced with experience Urban Systems – Manage technical expectations Learning Curve – Training requirements are significant
Success requires both surface water and groundwater modelling expertise Costs are marginally extra than traditional methods but the results are much
more meaningful